Will it be possible to play TSL (True Starting Locations) in Civ 7?

Do you want to be able to play TSL (True Starting Locations) games in Civ 7?


  • Total voters
    51
the actual Transition (rather than the Crisis itself) probably won’t involve losing any territory/ non obsolete buildings
I remember they're saying somewhere obsolete buildings would still have their basic yield, so chances are they aren't destroyed or disappear. Instead, it just likely mean you probably will want to switch them for new ones when available.

Also, we should get more detail of how a transition looks like in their stream in two days.
 
Half of all players? or the 28 people who replied to this poll. I strongly suspect that TSL maps are played by a very small minority of the Civ community.

I'm not too worried. I play on TSL a lot because I like to see how many Earth hexes I can fill up, but because of the structure of the game, I expect this to be handled by the modders this time around as opposed to being an official feature.


It's safe to assume (though we'll know more in a few days) that you'll have flexibility in how long the ages can be. Didn't they say that at minimum each age is 200 turns? Each age could probably end up being the length of a standard speed VI game if you really wanted it to be.
I took a quick look at the number of active subscribers of just 3 of the dozens of TSL maps that exist.
TSL Huge Earth Map 48,020
TSL Earth Remastered 65,022
Play the Earth 52,447
That's a little more than 28. But I will agree I exaggerated at half of all players. So, we'll just leave it with the 10's and 100's of thousands of active subscriptions on steam.
 
I took a quick look at the number of active subscribers of just 3 of the dozens of TSL maps that exist.
TSL Huge Earth Map 48,020
TSL Earth Remastered 65,022
Play the Earth 52,447
That's a little more than 28. But I will agree I exaggerated at half of all players. So, we'll just leave it with the 10's and 100's of thousands of active subscriptions on steam.
With over 10+ million Steam sales (not even including console sales) . . . that's going to put TSL players likely under 1%.

Multiple TSL maps are going to subscribed by the same people. And some of those folks won't care about TSL all that much . . . I've subscribed to a few of them and I don't mind losing TSL!

I'm sure the TSL community is dedicated . . . but its not a significant size to impact Firaxis decisions about Civ 7.
 
With over 10+ million Steam sales (not even including console sales) . . . that's going to put TSL players likely under 1%.
That's as good a guess as to the percent as any. I'd imagine those who play multiplayer games also are in the single digits, but have no idea (never done it). If so, by the same logic, they shouldn't impact decisions.
 
That's as good a guess as to the percent as any. I'd imagine those who play multiplayer games also are in the single digits, but have no idea (never done it). If so, by the same logic, they shouldn't impact decisions.
Caveat: I don't play multiplayer. However, no Civ game has ever felt like it was well-tuned for multiplayer so I'd say multiplayer does not significantly influence design decisions, either.
 
With over 10+ million Steam sales (not even including console sales) . . . that's going to put TSL players likely under 1%.

Multiple TSL maps are going to subscribed by the same people. And some of those folks won't care about TSL all that much . . . I've subscribed to a few of them and I don't mind losing TSL!

I'm sure the TSL community is dedicated . . . but its not a significant size to impact Firaxis decisions about Civ 7.
<---- some of us play with the Firaxis TSL maps, as bad as they are. I certainly am a TSL player, even if I'm not subscribed to the above. But as I mentioned in my other post, I play it less than I did back in Civ 4 days. I would say maybe 3 or 4% of my games (I've played a lot of games) are TSL maps.
 
In the end to each their own. I too play Civ in many ways. If you broke down civ into scenarios, multiplayer, hotseat (alas no more), map style A, B C etc.... In the end each one of these is a small percentage. That's been part of the appeal for a long time. I've been doing this since Civ 1 and haven't missed a beat. I just think that they have created a new process that only allows some ancient civilizations (those that survived to " our modern age") to do a TSL type of play. However, it is all ahistorical and IMHO they have made it more of a lopsided and quirky history lesson and less of a game this time around. At the end of each age you get a historical branch, a close to historical branch (regional), and the third branch depends on luck (if you have the necessary resources nearby) to take a different path. Don't get me wrong, I really like this idea but would like to play an occasional TSL in the traditional sense that has been presented by past incarnations of Civilization. Unfortunately, I just don't see how that can be done with the new system. I am quite sure the developers are smarter than me. So, I just hope they didn't ditch TSL along with hotseat play and instead have a plan in place to make that work.
 
Civ switching all but makes TSL impossible imo. Now if they swapped things around and had the Civilization remain constant but Leaders change after every Era, then TSL would easily work. Leaders being swapped out after every Era can lead to some interesting Shenanigans, including having Leaders that aren’t Geographically or Culturally possible(like Napoleon leading England or America for example, which btw is possible right now).

I’ve often enjoyed TSL maps but the one for Civ 6 was “bugged” because Rivers were spawned as unnamed and therefore never Flooded(majorly screwing Egypt in that regard) and as a result could never build Dams. I never looked into whether a fix for it was ever released but that’s another topic for another time. As it stands, Civ 7 should try to stay true to its roots with TSL maps but given the mechanics of Civ switching, I don’t think it’s possible.
 
Civ switching all but makes TSL impossible imo. Now if they swapped things around and had the Civilization remain constant but Leaders change after every Era, then TSL would easily work. Leaders being swapped out after every Era can lead to some interesting Shenanigans, including having Leaders that aren’t Geographically or Culturally possible(like Napoleon leading England or America for example, which btw is possible right now).

I’ve often enjoyed TSL maps but the one for Civ 6 was “bugged” because Rivers were spawned as unnamed and therefore never Flooded(majorly screwing Egypt in that regard) and as a result could never build Dams. I never looked into whether a fix for it was ever released but that’s another topic for another time. As it stands, Civ 7 should try to stay true to its roots with TSL maps but given the mechanics of Civ switching, I don’t think it’s possible.
How does it make TSL impossible? In a TSL, Greece can control the British isles.

Its a TSL, each civ Starts in their True Location. It just in Civ 7 you only start with a set of civs from one age (Rome, Egypt, Greece, Maya TSL. Or America, France. Mughal, Buganda TSL. Or Norman, Chola, Shawnee TSL)

Civ 7 adds the possibility of a True Switch Location mod (where switching to the next civ requires controlling its map location) or sticking with the IRL default historical connections.

As long as they add the Ability to choose your civs NAME. You could have

America (?Mississippi? uniques)-> America(Shawnee uniques)->America
vs another human
Rome->Rome(Norman uniques)->Rome(French uniques)
and AIs
Egypt->Abbasids->Ottomans?
Maya->Aztec->?Mexico
etc.
 
I took a quick look at the number of active subscribers of just 3 of the dozens of TSL maps that exist.
TSL Huge Earth Map 48,020
TSL Earth Remastered 65,022
Play the Earth 52,447
That's a little more than 28. But I will agree I exaggerated at half of all players. So, we'll just leave it with the 10's and 100's of thousands of active subscriptions on steam.
and 640,000+ for YNAMP.
 
How does it make TSL impossible? In a TSL, Greece can control the British isles.

Its a TSL, each civ Starts in their True Location. It just in Civ 7 you only start with a set of civs from one age (Rome, Egypt, Greece, Maya TSL. Or America, France. Mughal, Buganda TSL. Or Norman, Chola, Shawnee TSL)

Civ 7 adds the possibility of a True Switch Location mod (where switching to the next civ requires controlling its map location) or sticking with the IRL default historical connections.

As long as they add the Ability to choose your civs NAME. You could have

America (?Mississippi? uniques)-> America(Shawnee uniques)->America
vs another human
Rome->Rome(Norman uniques)->Rome(French uniques)
and AIs
Egypt->Abbasids->Ottomans?
Maya->Aztec->?Mexico
etc.
Well you answered your own question, It's impossible without a mod. They haven't added or yet announced the ability to name a Civ. So most likely it would have to be a mod. What we are saying is the way it is designed for release it is not possible. Hopefully people like Gedemon will take notice and fix the issue.
 
Well you answered your own question, It's impossible without a mod. They haven't added or yet announced the ability to name a Civ. So most likely it would have to be a mod. What we are saying is the way it is designed for release it is not possible. Hopefully people like Gedemon will take notice and fix the issue.
You don’t actually need a mod… It just means that when Egypt becomes the Abbasids, they may have moved deep into Africa and lost control of their TSL.
 
Well you answered your own question, It's impossible without a mod. They haven't added or yet announced the ability to name a Civ. So most likely it would have to be a mod. What we are saying is the way it is designed for release it is not possible. Hopefully people like Gedemon will take notice and fix the issue.
TSL is linking a position on a map to a civ, I can't be sure of course, but I don't see why civ7 would not have that option.

if one want to play TSL with the USA, he can start the game in the third age, no mod needed.

if one want to play the USA in 4000BC, he will need an option or a mod, yes, but not one specific to TSL.
 
TSL is linking a position on a map to a civ, I can't be sure of course, but I don't see why civ7 would not have that option.

if one want to play TSL with the USA, he can start the game in the third age, no mod needed.

if one want to play the USA in 4000BC, he will need an option or a mod, yes, but not one specific to TSL.
Respectfully, I do not want to play 1/3rd of a game. So I really hope you can create an awesome mod.
I think letting people select from a list of TSL locations and then reposition their selected Civ to that location solves the issue. Then people could play any civ at any TSL location of their choice.
 
I've 'ever been interested in playing the USA in 4000BC, usually I try to mod the opposite, which is now in the base game, sort of.

but I'm sure that if the game stil use SQL, the first mod out, a few hours after release, will triplicate all civs and set just one historical path: themselves versions for the next era.

If I'll mod something in relation to TSL maps, if possible, it's unlock your next civ by territory.
 
I know
I've 'ever been interested in playing the USA in 4000BC, usually I try to mod the opposite, which is now in the base game, sort of.

but I'm sure that if the game stil use SQL, the first mod out, a few hours after release, will triplicate all civs and set just one historical path: themselves versions for the next era.

If I'll mod something in relation to TSL maps, if possible, it's unlock your next civ by territory.
I like the idea of unlock your next civ by territory. This does sound like a discussion for another thread though.
 
What I meant regarding TSL being impossible to implement is that how the game is setup now, you’re only going to have a finite amount of Civilizations to choose from for the Antiquity Age. For those Civs specifically, there’s no issue. Where the issue rubs the road is Civs that become available in Exploration and Modern Ages and if I wanted to play those Civs in the Antiquity Era at their TSL, that is currently not possible without a mod. Furthermore if I transition to another Civ, it’s not going to be at their TSL unless I happen to own their historical location(something that I agree would be quite fun in a Mod).

TSL has been a thing since Civ 2, perhaps longer since I never played Civ 1, but the conflicts with Civs that start near you are always fun. Playing as America in 4000 BC isn’t for everyone but I don’t mind it one bit. It’s why I wish Civs remained constant but your Leader changed after every Era.
 
What I meant regarding TSL being impossible to implement is that how the game is setup now, you’re only going to have a finite amount of Civilizations to choose from for the Antiquity Age. For those Civs specifically, there’s no issue. Where the issue rubs the road is Civs that become available in Exploration and Modern Ages and if I wanted to play those Civs in the Antiquity Era at their TSL, that is currently not possible without a mod. Furthermore if I transition to another Civ, it’s not going to be at their TSL unless I happen to own their historical location(something that I agree would be quite fun in a Mod).

TSL has been a thing since Civ 2, perhaps longer since I never played Civ 1, but the conflicts with Civs that start near you are always fun. Playing as America in 4000 BC isn’t for everyone but I don’t mind it one bit. It’s why I wish Civs remained constant but your Leader changed after every Era.
Transitioning in a TSL wouldn’t be a problem, because the TSL of mose later civs is the same/very close to their historical progenitors.
 
Transitioning in a TSL wouldn’t be a problem, because the TSL of mose later civs is the same/very close to their historical progenitors.

How wouldn't it still be a problem?

1) The people who play TSL maps expect to have the map filled with more than antiquity era civilizations. That doesn't happen if you split the overall campaign into three rounds and have era specific civilizations

2) "well they'll expand into other civilizations starting zones" is hinged on the faulty assumption that the player/AI will expand into another Civilization's start areas and WANT to shift to that civilization... why would someone who picks Rome in a TSL map want to arbitrarily have to shift to Germany because they conquered the region?

3) Transitions like the Abbasids to Buganada are not and have no basis in historicity.
 
Top Bottom